Summons & Modes of Service — CPC & Limitation Act Notes

Summons & Modes of Service

A defendant once thought he could defeat a suit simply by shutting the door on the process-server and refusing to touch the summons. The Code had already anticipated exactly this move: Order 5 rule 17 lets the server affix the summons to the door and treat the defendant as served. You cannot escape a suit by pretending the postman never came.

What is a summons, and how is it served?

A summons is the court’s official notice to the defendant that a suit has been filed against them, calling on them to appear and answer on a fixed day. Think of it as a formal “you have been sued — here is your chance to reply.” It exists to satisfy a bedrock rule of fairness, audi alteram partem [hear the other side]: nobody should lose a case they were never told about.

Why it exists (the Why). Without compulsory notice, a plaintiff could get a decree behind the defendant’s back. The summons guarantees the defendant knows, and gives them a copy of the plaint so they know what is alleged.

When (the When). After the suit is registered, the court issues summons to the defendant (s.27); Order 5 rule 1(1) requires this to be done within thirty days of institution of the suit.

Contents. Section 27 and Order 5 require that the summons be signed by the judge, sealed by the court, and accompanied by a copy of the plaint (Order 5 rule 2). It states whether the defendant is called to settle issues, or for final disposal.

The modes of service (the How). This is the heart of the topic. Serve them in your answer as a labelled list.

Personal / direct service (Order 5 rules 10–16). The default mode. The summons is delivered or tendered to the defendant personally, and the defendant signs an acknowledgment. Where the defendant is absent, service can be made on an adult member of the family residing with them (not a servant — rule 15) or on a duly authorised agent (rule 12–13).
Service by the defendant’s agent (Order 5 rule 12). Where the defendant has an agent empowered to accept service, service on that agent is good service.
Service by post / approved courier / electronic means (Order 5 rule 9). The court may serve the summons by registered post acknowledgment due, speed post, an approved courier, fax, or email. If the acknowledgment is signed by the defendant, or the article is returned with an endorsement that the defendant refused it, the court may declare service effected.
Service by affixation (Order 5 rule 17). Where the defendant or an agent refuses to sign, or the server, after due diligence, cannot find the defendant and there is no agent, the server affixes a copy on the outer door or some conspicuous part of the house. This counts as valid service.
Substituted service (Order 5 rule 20). Where the court is satisfied that the defendant is avoiding service, or that the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, it may order substituted service — typically by affixing the summons on the court-house notice board and the defendant’s last-known residence, and by advertisement in a newspaper circulating where the defendant last resided. Substituted service ordered by the court is as effectual as personal service.
Service where the defendant is outside jurisdiction, in prison, or a public servant (ss.28–29, Order 5 rules 21–26). Special routes: through the court where the defendant resides, through the jail officer, or through the head of the office / the Government.

⚠️ Do NOT confuse rule 17 (affixation) with rule 20 (substituted service). Affixation under rule 17 is done by the server on the defendant’s house when the defendant refuses or is not found. Substituted service under rule 20 is ordered by the court when the defendant is avoiding service, and includes newspaper advertisement. Rule 20 needs a court order; rule 17 does not.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the defendant who slams the door

Facts. The process-server reaches D’s house. D sees the summons, understands what it is, and refuses to take it or sign. The server affixes the summons on D’s front door and reports this to the court.

Rule. Order 5 rule 17: where the defendant refuses to sign the acknowledgment, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door of the house, and this is treated as service.

Apply. D’s refusal is exactly the situation rule 17 covers. The server did due diligence, D was identified, and the copy was affixed. Refusal is not a shield.

Conclusion. Service is valid. If D still does not appear, the court may proceed ex parte under Order 9 rule 6. Decoy. “Refused service is no service” is wrong — refusal is good service under rule 17.

Order 5 rule 17 — Procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found: “Where the defendant or his agent… refuses to sign the acknowledgment, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant… and there is no agent empowered to accept service… the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house…”

Order 5 rule 20 — Substituted service: “(1) Where the Court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court-house, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house… [and may order publication in a newspaper]… (2) Service substituted… shall be as effectual as if it had been made on the defendant personally.”

In Simple Terms: If the defendant slams the door or refuses to sign, the server can stick the summons on the house (rule 17). If the defendant is deliberately hiding, the court can order it stuck on the notice board and published in a newspaper (rule 20). Either way, the law treats the defendant as told.

flowchart TD
    S["Summons issued<br/>s.27, O.5 (with plaint copy)"]:::root
    S --> P["Personal service<br/>O.5 rr.10-16"]:::leaf
    S --> A["Service on agent /<br/>adult family member<br/>O.5 rr.12-15"]:::leaf
    S --> M["By post / courier /<br/>email O.5 r.9"]:::leaf
    S --> X{"Defendant refuses<br/>or not found?"}:::decision
    X -->|"Refuses / affix"| AF["Affixation<br/>O.5 r.17"]:::leaf
    X -->|"Avoiding service"| SUB["Substituted service<br/>O.5 r.20 (court order + advert)"]:::outcome

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef decision fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#8A6D00,color:#000;
    classDef outcome fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v Union of India (2005) — upheld the amended Order 5 (service by post, courier and electronic means) as valid and aimed at cutting delay.
Basant Singh v Roman Catholic Mission (2002) — substituted service and its effect must be judged strictly; the court must be genuinely satisfied that the defendant is avoiding service before ordering it.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All CPC & Limitation Act topics